Re: [boost] [infrastructure] The vault vs. project hosting vs. Boost hosting?

Subject: Re: [boost] [infrastructure] The vault vs. project hosting vs. Boost hosting?
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-18 21:31:49

On 7/18/2011 4:17 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 08:33, Thomas Heller<thom.heller_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
>> ... How about getting the software and host a boost like
>> github/svnhub/mercurialhub whatever (provided we have the necessary
>> ressources)?
>>
>
> Something like Rhodecode? (http://rhodecode.org/) This one isn't ready to be
> used with any other kind of repo than mercurial/hg, even if it's promising
> (I'm using it for private repos).
>
> So I think you would have to choose between:
>   1. use mercurial only (I guess it's not a real option)
>   2. contribute to rhodecode or another similar software to complete it for
> boost community needs
>   3. write your own repo manager
>
> It looks like none of those options would likely be done in short term.
> Maybe public hosting services could be a short-term solution while efforts
> are being done for a boost-community-managed service. That said, it's not a
> suggestion, just an observation.

I think this is moving in the opposite direction. We want to have less 
management work, not more. So it seems like a big drawback, just so we 
can have a single libraries index/catalog.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail